Yes, punishment for the potentiality to commit a crime. Just imagine if this excellent principle was applied to childrearing- I give my child a good birching for having the potential to steal candies and cookies, and then give him a stern lecture on why he shouldn't take candies and cookies, or grounding him, and telling him the virtues of getting good grades just because, regardless of his grades at the moment, he has the potential to fail. Imagine how that'll work out.

That is the exact opposite of what I mean by good parenting. If you raise your child in a completely different manner, they will never have the potential to commit rape or sexual assault.

(queue sad voice) "If only they had been raised in a loving environment, they would have never done this". Sorry, this is not true. People are influenced by environment, but they are not controlled by it. Someone could grow up in a completely loving environment and still commit horrific violent crimes.

That is the exact opposite of what I mean by good parenting. If you raise your child in a completely different manner, they will never have the potential to commit rape or sexual assault.

Lordseth23 seems to be contradicting himself once more, he is unwilling to apply his most excellent principle of jurisprudence, to punish people for the potential to commit a crime, to parenting, in that it is 'bad parenting'. Thus, since it is an evil when applied to parenting, how, then, can he explain why it is good when applied to Justice?

lock them up if they cannot overcome their psychological deficiencies. Would you rather give James Holmes and Adam Lanza the freedom to have access to bulletproof vests and assault rifles when they have no criminal record yet? Or would you make them receive the psychological help that they need before they start murdering people?

Yes, actually, if James Holmes and Adam Lanza have not committed a crime yet, have no criminal record, and have passed the tests we have enacted to measure the psychological fitness to own a gun, they should be able to enjoy their rights. That is why no one, beside yourself, is advocating locking up everyone with psychological problems, and focus, instead, on improving gun control.

3. Which is why we don't need to lock up everybody, just the people who cannot overcome their psychological deficiencies. Wouldn't you rather keep a person behind bars instead of giving them the freedom to rape/assault your loved ones?

No, I would rather have people free, the laws just and well administered, then to have people locked up on grounds of little more than the potential to commit a crime.

That would be false. It doesn't matter how good your logic is if you can't communicate it properly.

To communicate something properly is not the same as to communicate it clearly- if people understand what I have said, regardless of grammar, then the point is still valid.

Not necessary, because they would already be in prison. No one would get raped if we had the ability to give every disturbed person the psychological help that they need.

Necessary- the penis is a tool of rape, and every penis has the potential to rape someone, regardless of gender, or use phallic objects to rape someone. Therefore, all penises and phallic objects should be banned. If we get rid of all the people with psychological problem, there is still the problem of people developing psychological problems. The only solution is to ban the instruments of rape.

We need to be proactive and prevent rape, not simply wait for it to happen.

We need to be proactive and prevent murder, arson, thief, etc., rather than wait for it to happen, which is why we should extend your most excellent proposal to everyone, since everyone has the potential to commit homicide, to give into pryomaniacal tendencies, to steal, we should lock everyone up.

No it wouldn't. The cost for keeping me alive in prison would be greater than building a simple killing device to dispose of me and all other death-penalty criminals.

Yes it would, the government may have to pay for you to be alive, but they are purchasing food and other articles from the private sector, which stimulate the economy. What is good for the government is not the same thing as what is good for the economy.

But the discussion is not limited to rape specifically, so it is relevant.

But, you were speaking in context of rape, so irrelevent.

Those would be commandments. Commandments do not exist in education.

But your education does.

But, like many other perfectly sane men, I do not use it rape women. My moral intuition prevents me from ever committing such a crime.

The people with psychological problem may never commit rape, but they are locked up, most justly and wisely, for their potential to commit rape. You and other men have the necessary tool to potentially commit rape as well, so, to reduce the possibility of rape to nil, I think that we should lock every man up, castrate 'em, and ban any object longer than it is thick.

This type of person has severe psychological issues that need to be tended to immediately.

This type of person has not committed a crime, and so should not be punished and removed from society for the potentiality to commit a crime.

If they have the potential to commit a severe crime, then yes.

You do understand that everyone has the potential to commit a severe crime?

That is the exact opposite of what I mean by good parenting. If you raise your child in a completely different manner, they will never have the potential to commit rape or sexual assault.

Lordseth23 seems to be contradicting himself once more, he is unwilling to apply his most excellent principle of jurisprudence, to punish people for the potential to commit a crime, to parenting, in that it is 'bad parenting'. Thus, since it is an evil when applied to parenting, how, then, can he explain why it is good when applied to Justice?

If a child is properly nurtured, then there is no need to punish them for potentially committing a severe crime, becuase they will develop the moral intiution necessary to never commit such crimes. If a person cannot rid themselves of the psychological deficiencies that cause them to commit severe crimes, then they should be punished for the threat they pose.

Yes, actually, if James Holmes and Adam Lanza have not committed a crime yet, have no criminal record, and have passed the tests we have enacted to measure the psychological fitness to own a gun, they should be able to enjoy their rights.

Are there such tests? If there are, we need to enhance them in order to be able to detect the psychological defeciencies that causes people to commit severe crimes. That way, these deranged people get the help the need before they commit terrible crimes.

That is why no one, beside yourself, is advocating locking up everyone with psychological problems, and focus, instead, on improving gun control.

Guns are not the issue, psychopaths with guns are.

No, I would rather have people free, the laws just and well administered, then to have people locked up on grounds of little more than the potential to commit a crime.

Why wouldn't you want a person that has the ability to kill innocent people locked up?

That would be false. It doesn't matter how good your logic is if you can't communicate it properly.

To communicate something properly is not the same as to communicate it clearly- if people understand what I have said, regardless of grammar, then the point is still valid.

People will ignore what you have to say if you can't write clearly.

Necessary- the penis is a tool of rape, and every penis has the potential to rape someone, regardless of gender, or use phallic objects to rape someone.

Also necessary are the psychological deficiencies required to rape someone. Without these deficiencies, there would be no rape.

We need to be proactive and prevent murder, arson, thief, etc., rather than wait for it to happen, which is why we should extend your most excellent proposal to everyone, since everyone has the potential to commit homicide, to give into pryomaniacal tendencies, to steal, we should lock everyone up.

That would be false. Only people with distinct psychological problems have the potential to commit homicide, give into pyromaniacal tendencies, and to steal.

No it wouldn't. The cost for keeping me alive in prison would be greater than building a simple killing device to dispose of me and all other death-penalty criminals.

Yes it would, the government may have to pay for you to be alive, but they are purchasing food and other articles from the private sector, which stimulate the economy. What is good for the government is not the same thing as what is good for the economy.

They have the better option of hiring people from the private sector to run this operation, which would create new jobs and stimulate the economy even more.

But the discussion is not limited to rape specifically, so it is relevant.

But, you were speaking in context of rape, so irrelevent.

The context in which I was speaking was not limited to rape.

Those would be commandments. Commandments do not exist in education.

But your education does.

Impossible.

This type of person has severe psychological issues that need to be tended to immediately.

This type of person has not committed a crime, and so should not be punished and removed from society for the potentiality to commit a crime.

They still need help before they do commit a crime.

If they have the potential to commit a severe crime, then yes.

You do understand that everyone has the potential to commit a severe crime?

Yes, punishment for the potentiality to commit a crime. Just imagine if this excellent principle was applied to childrearing- I give my child a good birching for having the potential to steal candies and cookies, and then give him a stern lecture on why he shouldn't take candies and cookies, or grounding him, and telling him the virtues of getting good grades just because, regardless of his grades at the moment, he has the potential to fail. Imagine how that'll work out.

That is the exact opposite of what I mean by good parenting. If you raise your child in a completely different manner, they will never have the potential to commit rape or sexual assault.

(queue sad voice) "If only they had been raised in a loving environment, they would have never done this". Sorry, this is not true. People are influenced by environment, but they are not controlled by it. Someone could grow up in a completely loving environment and still commit horrific violent crimes.

Okay then, cite a credible source if you want it to be relevant to this discussion. An opinion does not disprove another opinion by itself.

If a child is properly nurtured, then there is no need to punish them for potentially committing a severe crime, becuase they will develop the moral intiution necessary to never commit such crimes. If a person cannot rid themselves of the psychological deficiencies that cause them to commit severe crimes, then they should be punished for the threat they pose.

Excellent- so, I am properly nurturing my child by preparing him for your grand vision of the world, where crime need not exist to be punished, but the potential to commit a crime, and people who have psychological problems should be punished for the threat they pose, just as gay people should be punished for being born gay for the threat they pose to heteronormativity.

Regardless, it is a source we must eliminate.

Trice excellent, how does one go about eliminating child abuse short of installing cameras in every house, and hiring more people to watch over them.

Are there such tests? If there are, we need to enhance them in order to be able to detect the psychological defeciencies that causes people to commit severe crimes. That way, these deranged people get the help the need before they commit terrible crimes.

People with psychological problems, it may surprise you, are entitled to the same rights as you are. They are, by reason of their citizenship, protected against such things.

Guns are not the issue, psychopaths with guns are.

The issue, I think, is that our nation is too soft on people with psychological problems, and, so, since people who are not mentally sound should not be allowed to be citizens, we must revoke their citizenship, and set them on fire, rather than letting them into our society to enjoy our freedoms. Maybe this may provide an incentive not to have psychological problems.

Why wouldn't you want a person that has the ability to kill innocent people locked up?

Everyone has the ability to kill innocent people- they just need the tools.

People will ignore what you have to say if you can't write clearly.

Clarity=/=Grammatically. Being overmuch concern with other people's grammar falls into pedantry.

Also necessary are the psychological deficiencies required to rape someone. Without these deficiencies, there would be no rape.

First and foremost is the existence of sexual organs or things that are shaped in such a way as to vaguely resemble sexual organs, which, regardless of the people's mental health, are potential instruments of rape. People's psychological states are liable to change- the only thing that is constant is the tools with which they use to rape! Thus, we must castrate all men to protect the world against the danger of rape.

That would be false. Only people with distinct psychological problems have the potential to commit homicide, give into pyromaniacal tendencies, and to steal.

That is also false, because people will give into homicide, theif, etc. given sufficient reason to steal, murder, etc. It's called 'incentive'.

They have the better option of hiring people from the private sector to run this operation, which would create new jobs and stimulate the economy even more.

So, you admit that it is more profitable to keep you alive than dead- we already went over this, and if you know yourself to be wrong, don't speak.

The context in which I was speaking was not limited to rape.

You were speaking in the limited context of rape- how promiscuity, drinks, and drugs leads to rape and what not.

Impossible.

Behold, O Israel, I am the Lord, Lordseth23, and these are my three commendments:

1. Thou shalt not engage in promisuity, neither shall ye know another man or another woman outside wedlock, for it is evil in mine eyes.

2. Thou shalt not use any narcotics, hallucinogins, and other psychotropic, for it is too a great evil in mine eyes.

3. Thou shalt not drink alcohol, for I detest the taste.

They still need help before they do commit a crime.

Excellent, the potentiality to commit a crime is the sole factor of imprisonment. How about, instead of punishing people with psychological problems, which constitute a good portion of the population, we, instead, hire prognostics, who shall, via their calculations of the entrails of calves and the alignments of the stars, divine the names of these potential criminals..

Not everyone, only the people who have severe psychological problems.

Everyone has the potential to do it so long as they have all the tools necessary to commit a crime, it is only a question of 'how likely?'- there is never a zero percent chance. Therefore, we must lock everyone up to keep everyone safe.

Excellent- so, I am properly nurturing my child by preparing him for your grand vision of the world, where crime need not exist to be punished, but the potential to commit a crime, and people who have psychological problems should be punished for the threat they pose, just as gay people should be punished for being born gay for the threat they pose to heteronormativity.

Gay people do not pose any threat, so your argument is invalid.

Trice excellent, how does one go about eliminating child abuse short of installing cameras in every house, and hiring more people to watch over them.

I have no idea. That is why we need to bring attention to the issue of child abuse if we want to prevent it.

Are there such tests? If there are, we need to enhance them in order to be able to detect the psychological defeciencies that causes people to commit severe crimes. That way, these deranged people get the help the need before they commit terrible crimes.

People with psychological problems, it may surprise you, are entitled to the same rights as you are. They are, by reason of their citizenship, protected against such things.

Then how can we prevent them from committing severe crimes?

Guns are not the issue, psychopaths with guns are.

The issue, I think, is that our nation is too soft on people with psychological problems, and, so, since people who are not mentally sound should not be allowed to be citizens, we must revoke their citizenship, and set them on fire, rather than letting them into our society to enjoy our freedoms. Maybe this may provide an incentive not to have psychological problems.

I think a better option would be to alleviate their problems.

Why wouldn't you want a person that has the ability to kill innocent people locked up?

Everyone has the ability to kill innocent people- they just need the tools.

A person that does not have psychological issues will never kill innocent people.

Clarity=/=Grammatically. Being overmuch concern with other people's grammar falls into pedantry.

It is a concern when grammar prevents clarity.

First and foremost is the existence of sexual organs or things that are shaped in such a way as to vaguely resemble sexual organs, which, regardless of the people's mental health, are potential instruments of rape. People's psychological states are liable to change- the only thing that is constant is the tools with which they use to rape! Thus, we must castrate all men to protect the world against the danger of rape.

Then we need to elimate the root of the problem, which is faulty psychological states.

That would be false. Only people with distinct psychological problems have the potential to commit homicide, give into pyromaniacal tendencies, and to steal.

That is also false, because people will give into homicide, theif, etc. given sufficient reason to steal, murder, etc. It's called 'incentive'.

Thus, we need to eliminate the incentive.

The context in which I was speaking was not limited to rape.

You were speaking in the limited context of rape- how promiscuity, drinks, and drugs leads to rape and what not.

That is only what your feeble mind interpreted.

Behold, O Israel, I am the Lord, Lordseth23, and these are my three commendments:

1. Thou shalt not engage in promisuity, neither shall ye know another man or another woman outside wedlock, for it is evil in mine eyes.

2. Thou shalt not use any narcotics, hallucinogins, and other psychotropic, for it is too a great evil in mine eyes.

3. Thou shalt not drink alcohol, for I detest the taste.

This is an excellent example of how commandments should not be mistaken for education. Deities do not teach, they only enforce their will.

They still need help before they do commit a crime.

Excellent, the potentiality to commit a crime is the sole factor of imprisonment. How about, instead of punishing people with psychological problems, which constitute a good portion of the population, we, instead, hire prognostics, who shall, via their calculations of the entrails of calves and the alignments of the stars, divine the names of these potential criminals..

Only if its accuracy is 100% correct.

Everyone has the potential to do it so long as they have all the tools necessary to commit a crime, it is only a question of 'how likely?'- there is never a zero percent chance. Therefore, we must lock everyone up to keep everyone safe.

lordseth23wrote Gay people do not pose any threat, so your argument is invalid.

Gay people are about as liable to villianously spread that disease of HIV and AIDS, and Gay people are out to destroy the heteronormativity of our civilisation, just as how people with psychological problems are out there to be rapists and to rape every women they can get their hands on. Seeing as they are equally a threat to the safety of our society, bound by the laws of nature and reason, we should go out and punish both for the crimes they have not committed.

I have no idea. That is why we need to bring attention to the issue of child abuse if we want to prevent it.

It sounds kind of like what we are already doing, only we don't punish people who have been abused by childhood, and labelling them potential rapists. Which is a terrible thing, after all, there is nothing more lawful, and more just, than to have our wise government pick out someone, based upon certain qualification- such as psychology, race, sexual orientation, etc.- label them a potential criminal, and punish them.

Then how can we prevent them from committing severe crimes?

In our outdated and unjust system, we don't punish those that have the potential to commit crime, but those that have. What we need instead, is a more just system, where the potential to commit a crime should justly be punished, just as a student should be briched, as said before, for the potential to fail abysmally,idle around the classroom, do drugs, etc., regardless of whether he does those things now. Thus, a good headmaster should give a good beating and a stern lecture to every potential criminal, and, in jurisprudence, a good judge sentences a man to punishment for the potential to commit a crime rather than his actual deeds- we would see many executed in certain states under the charge of 'potential murder'.

I think a better option would be to alleviate their problems.

Wouldn't, then, the best option be not segregating them from society and allow them to seek help for their problems of their own volition?

A person that does not have psychological issues will never kill innocent people.

Many sane people without psychological issues kill innocents- where the temptation is great enough. Since every man is endowed with the tools to kill, or with enough intelligence to create/purchase such tools, it follows that there always exist a possibility someone may kill another, innocent person, regardless of psychological issue- that it exist is enough to justify, according to your own principles of potentiality, their being locked up and punished?

It is a concern when grammar prevents clarity.

It did not hinder the clarity of the original post- you were just being pedantic in lieu of actually having an argument.

Then we need to elimate the root of the problem, which is faulty psychological states.

As have been said, psychological conditions are liable to change, the root of the problem is that there exist sexual organs, and things shaped like sexual organs, which may be used as a tool of rape, thus, we must castrate all men and get rid of anything longer than it is wide..

Thus, we need to eliminate the incentive.

Et in Arcadia Ego.

That is only what your feeble mind interpreted.

It is clear from context you applied it to rape.

This is an excellent example of how commandments should not be mistaken for education. Deities do not teach, they only enforce their will.

So, you aspire to godhood? The laurels of insipidity, idiocy, and stupidity is not enough- you aspire to that greatest of crown, that of non-existence!

Only if its accuracy is 100% correct.

I would say it is much more accurate than your proposed system, which is why we should replace detectives with seers.

Gay people are about as liable to villianously spread that disease of HIV and AIDS, and Gay people are out to destroy the heteronormativity of our civilisation,

Heteronormativity should never be defended under any circumstances. Your personal homophobia is irrelevant to this thread.

I have no idea. That is why we need to bring attention to the issue of child abuse if we want to prevent it.

It sounds kind of like what we are already doing, only we don't punish people who have been abused by childhood, and labelling them potential rapists. Which is a terrible thing, after all, there is nothing more lawful, and more just, than to have our wise government pick out someone, based upon certain qualification- such as psychology, race, sexual orientation, etc.- label them a potential criminal, and punish them.

Then we should work on eradicating their psychological deficiencies.

In our outdated and unjust system, we don't punish those that have the potential to commit crime, but those that have. What we need instead, is a more just system, where the potential to commit a crime should justly be punished, just as a student should be briched, as said before, for the potential to fail abysmally,idle around the classroom, do drugs, etc., regardless of whether he does those things now. Thus, a good headmaster should give a good beating and a stern lecture to every potential criminal, and, in jurisprudence, a good judge sentences a man to punishment for the potential to commit a crime rather than his actual deeds- we would see many executed in certain states under the charge of 'potential murder'.

Why do we need to punish them? Why can't we just give them the psychological help that they need?

I think a better option would be to alleviate their problems.

Wouldn't, then, the best option be not segregating them from society and allow them to seek help for their problems of their own volition?

No, because they do not know that they have problems to begin with, so they cannot be expected to seek help on their own.

Many sane people without psychological issues kill innocents- where the temptation is great enough.

Name one.

Then we need to elimate the root of the problem, which is faulty psychological states.

As have been said, psychological conditions are liable to change, the root of the problem is that there exist sexual organs, and things shaped like sexual organs, which may be used as a tool of rape, thus, we must castrate all men and get rid of anything longer than it is wide..

Or we can try the ethical approach of eliminating the psychological conditions that are responsible for rape.

So, you aspire to godhood? The laurels of insipidity, idiocy, and stupidity is not enough- you aspire to that greatest of crown, that of non-existence!

I aspire to non-existence, but not godhood.

Only if its accuracy is 100% correct.

I would say it is much more accurate than your proposed system, which is why we should replace detectives with seers.

How is it more accurate than checking the brains of people for psychological deficiencies?

Heteronormativity should never be defended under any circumstances. Your personal homophobia is irrelevant to this thread.

Sigh! Irony is lost upon the foolish.

Then we should work on eradicating their psychological deficiencies.

Problems=/=deficiencies.

But, more to the point, your plan involves 'eradicating their psychological deficiencies' by locking them up away from society and then forcing a correct mode upon them, effectively punishing them for the potential to commit a crime. Since people's psychological states are liable to change, it follows that your plan is wholly deficient, even by its own standards. It also rightly and justly forces people, against their consent, to go through with a programme to prevent a crime they may never commit, which is impractical, as people may, it may surprise you, relapse. So, as this is the case, we should, instead, follow through with my plan, which involves the government locking people and executing them on account of potential to commit a crime- imagine, death-roll shall be lined with 'potential murderers' and the gaols would be teeming with 'potential rapists', 'potential thief', etc.

Sane people may argue that it is far better that we let them off, because they have yet to commit a crime, and so are innocent, and have no need of any form of punishment, or force corrective programmes, to curb their 'psychological deficiencies'. That these people should be able to go of their own volition and choice, rather than be forced into it, and separated from society, by the government. They may complain, overmuch, of such unprecedented invasion of civil liberty.

Not us, dear Lordseth23, we are not such moderate and reasonable people.

Why do we need to punish them? Why can't we just give them the psychological help that they need?

Why do you want to punish them? For the potential to commit a crime.

Why are you forcing something they do not want to prevent something they may never do? Because the potential exist.

Since you have repeated this argument over and over, I am so thoroughly convinced of its legitimacy, (as I was never one for staid sanity) that I propose to take it further! Lock everyone up for their potential.

No, because they do not know that they have problems to begin with, so they cannot be expected to seek help on their own.

So, you are basically saying they don't know their own problem, and it is for the safety of everyone that they should be locked up and forced into treatment, rather then having them go of their own volition, and get treatment of their own volition. So, you are willing to violate their civil rights to prevent a phantom danger by forcing upon them treatment they themselves are not seeking, and may not even need if they are able to live with it.

Name one.

Money.

Or we can try the ethical approach of eliminating the psychological conditions that are responsible for rape.

Or the even more ethical approach (and probably the only ethical approach) of not punishing people who have not yet commit a crime.

But, if you were ethical, you would never suggest such ideas in the first place, of segregating people based on potentiality, of forcing them into programmes they have not given their consent to, why not join me, and go the extra mile.

Lock everyone up for the potential to commit rape!

I aspire to non-existence, but not godhood.

Behold, Deus Sabaoth, his name is Lordseth23.

How is it more accurate than checking the brains of people for psychological deficiencies?

There is too many people with psychological problems for your approach of locking them up and forcing a Reeducation programme to be feasible (not to mention the sheer amount of innocent people getting caught up in your programme), Seers, on the other hand, guided as they are by the stars, the peregrine lights, the entrails of calves, the celestial signs, and the science of Astrology, are able to divine the name of criminals. Let the seers prognosticate, of else let Lordseth23's plan rule, and then, we shall see a new Saturnian age, lead by the Queen of Burning Stars, the Goddess, daughter of Eris and Zeus, Ate, reign, with her companions- Philautia, Kolakia, Lethe, Misoponia, Hedone, Anoia, Tryphe, Komos, and Eegretos Hypnos, who shall descend upon the world like the fabled Four Eschatological Equestrians.

But, more to the point, your plan involves 'eradicating their psychological deficiencies' by locking them up away from society and then forcing a correct mode upon them, effectively punishing them for the potential to commit a crime. Since people's psychological states are liable to change, it follows that your plan is wholly deficient, even by its own standards.

If their psychological states are liable to change, then why can't we change them for the better?

Why are you forcing something they do not want to prevent something they may never do? Because the potential exist.

Why wouldn't they want to be happy?

No, because they do not know that they have problems to begin with, so they cannot be expected to seek help on their own.

So, you are basically saying they don't know their own problem, and it is for the safety of everyone that they should be locked up and forced into treatment, rather then having them go of their own volition, and get treatment of their own volition. So, you are willing to violate their civil rights to prevent a phantom danger by forcing upon them treatment they themselves are not seeking, and may not even need if they are able to live with it.

Or we can try the ethical approach of eliminating the psychological conditions that are responsible for rape.

Or the even more ethical approach (and probably the only ethical approach) of not punishing people who have not yet commit a crime.

But, if you were ethical, you would never suggest such ideas in the first place, of segregating people based on potentiality, of forcing them into programmes they have not given their consent to, why not join me, and go the extra mile.

Or we can try the ethical approach of eliminating the psychological conditions that are responsible for rape.

Or the even more ethical approach (and probably the only ethical approach) of not punishing people who have not yet commit a crime.

But, if you were ethical, you would never suggest such ideas in the first place, of segregating people based on potentiality, of forcing them into programmes they have not given their consent to, why not join me, and go the extra mile.

Actually, it's more healthy and holistic by you allowing yourself to feel your emotions, through the process of constructing a descriptive dialog. Most of these responses were either too macho or sage-like for my taste, I would very much like to hear from a humane perspective.

Or we can try the ethical approach of eliminating the psychological conditions that are responsible for rape.

Or the even more ethical approach (and probably the only ethical approach) of not punishing people who have not yet commit a crime.

But, if you were ethical, you would never suggest such ideas in the first place, of segregating people based on potentiality, of forcing them into programmes they have not given their consent to, why not join me, and go the extra mile.

Lock everyone up for the potential to commit rape!

This is starting to sound kinda Hitler'esque....

That's the whole point.

I see where youre going. I just dont think the OP realizes how controlling and domineering his ideals appear.